Search

Background: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ), a 10-item, equally weighted, yes/no tool assessing symptom impairment and risk of exacerbations in patients with asthma aged ≥12 years, was developed and validated in a US patient population to evaluate varying levels of asthma control. This study aimed to validate the German language version of the AIRQ in patients aged ≥12 years with different levels of asthma control., Methods: A cross-sectional, observational, multi-centre study comprising a single visit was conducted in multiple specialised asthma centres and general practices in Germany. A total of 300 patients completed the following measures: 1) Patient Sociodemographic and Clinical Questionnaire, 2) AIRQ, 3) Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 4) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the AIRQ score cut points with the greatest predictive validity in discriminating between different control levels relative to a standard of ACT plus prior-year exacerbations or ACQ-6 plus prior-year exacerbations., Results: The German version of the AIRQ demonstrated a robust capability to correctly identify well-controlled versus not well- or very poorly controlled (AUC values of 0.90 or higher) and well- or not well-controlled versus very poorly controlled asthma (AUC values of 0.89 or higher)., Conclusions: The German version of the AIRQ is a suitable tool to identify adults with varying levels of asthma control, which in turn can help to accurately identify patients with uncontrolled asthma in clinical practice., Competing Interests: F. Kanniess has served as a speaker and on advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Novartis, GSK and Teva. M. Lommatzsch has served as a speaker and on advisory boards for ALK, Allergopharma, AstraZeneca, Bencard Allergie, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bosch, Chiesi, Circassia, GSK, HAL Allergy, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Nycomed/Takeda, Sanofi, Teva, and UCB. T. Schultz has served as a speaker and on advisory boards and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Esanum, GSK, Meda, Mundipharma, Novartis, Omniamed, TEVA, UCB and various professional associations. H. Timmermann has served as a speaker and lecturer and received consultant fees and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Almirall, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie, GSK, Leti Pharma, Meda, Mundipharma, Novartis, Nycomed, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and TEVA. O. Schmidt received fees for lectures or consulting from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Novartis, and Sanofi. S. Heindl has served as speaker and received consultation fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Klosterfrau Melissengeist. H.J. Baumann has served as a speaker and lecturer and received consultant fees and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Pfizer. R. Buhl has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, and Roche, as well as personal fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche and Teva. S. Korn has served as a speaker received consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, and Sanofi. K. Defosse and F. Höing are employees of AstraZeneca. C. Taube has no competing interests to declare., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

The COVID-19 pandemic mandated a substantial switch in primary health care delivery from an in-person to a mainly remote telephone or video service. As the COVID-19 pandemic approaches its third year, limited progress appears to have been made in terms of policy development around consultation methods for the post-acute phase of the pandemic. In September 2020, the International Primary Care Respiratory Group convened a global panel of primary care clinicians - including family physicians, paediatricians, pharmacists, academics and patients - to consider the policy and health management implications of the move to remote consultations in the primary care setting. The group gave special consideration to how and how far remote consultations should be integrated into routine primary health care delivery. Remote consultations can be a useful alternative to in-person consultations in primary care not only in situations where there is a need for viral infection control but also for the routine delivery of chronic disease management. However, they may not be more time efficient for the clinician, and they can add to the workload and work-related stress for primary care practitioners if they remain the dominant consultation mode. Remote consultations are also less appropriate than in-person consultations for new disease diagnosis, dealing with multiple issues and providing complex care. Ensuring health care professionals have the appropriate skill set to effectively deliver remote consultations, administrative and/or IT support and appropriate reimbursement will be key to achieving optimal integration of remote consultations into routine clinical practice. Addressing digital access and digital literacy issues at a societal level will also be essential to ensure individuals have fair and equitable access to the internet and sufficient security for exchange of personal and health-related data.

Background: QMF149 is an inhaled fixed-dose combination of indacaterol acetate and mometasone furoate (MF) delivered via Breezhaler®, under development for once-daily treatment of asthma. MF delivered via Twisthaler® is approved as Asmanex® Twisthaler® for the treatment of asthma. Bridging of MF delivered via Twisthaler® to MF delivered via Breezhaler® was undertaken as part of QMF149 development to enable dose comparisons between the devices. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of MF were characterized in two studies; a single dose PK study in healthy volunteers and a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) study in asthma patients., Objectives: The PK study in healthy volunteers evaluated the PK of single doses of MF via Breezhaler® (50-400 μg) and compared systemic exposure of MF following administration via Breezhaler® and Twisthaler® 400 μg (2 inhalations of 200 μg). The study in patients with asthma characterized the MF PK profile following once-daily inhalation of MF via Breezhaler® and Twisthaler® devices for 4 weeks., Methods: In the open-label, single-dose, crossover study, healthy subjects sequentially received MF via Twisthaler® (400 μg, medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) and escalating doses via Breezhaler® (50, 100, 200, 400 μg). PK data were obtained up to 72 h post-dose. In the double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, asthma patients were randomised to receive either MF 80 μg (low-dose ICS) or 320 μg (high-dose ICS) via Breezhaler®, or 200 μg (low-dose ICS) or 800 μg (2 inhalations of 400 μg; high-dose ICS) via Twisthaler® once daily for 4 weeks. PK sampling was performed on Days 1 and 28 at pre-dose and up to 24 h post-dose., Results: In the healthy volunteer PK study, 20 healthy subjects completed all treatments. Dose-normalised AUC last of MF was 1.8-1.9-fold higher when delivered via Breezhaler® versus Twisthaler®. AUC and C max of MF increased in a dose-proportional manner over the range of 50-400 μg via Breezhaler®. Results from this study guided dose selection of MF via Breezhaler® for the asthma study. In the asthma study, in a subset of 96 patients, mean systemic exposure (AUC last and C max ) for MF 80 and 320 μg via Breezhaler® was comparable with MF 200 and 800 μg via Twisthaler®, respectively, on Day 28., Conclusion: PK characterization in a healthy volunteer PK study and subsequently an asthma study enabled selection of 80 μg (low), 160 μg (medium), and 320 μg (high) delivered via Breezhaler® as MF doses comparable to the 200 μg, 400 μg and 800 μg doses delivered by Twisthaler®, respectively, as part of QMF149 formulation development., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Mometasone furoate (MF) is the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) component in the long-acting β 2 -agonist (LABA)/ICS fixed-dose combination of indacaterol/MF, delivered via Breezhaler®, in development for asthma. MF at low (80 μg) and high (320 μg) doses delivered via Breezhaler® is expected to be comparable to MF at low (200 μg) and high (800 μg) doses respectively, delivered via Twisthaler®., Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-week, parallel-group study of 739 adolescents and adults with persistent asthma. Eligible patients were receiving ICS treatment up to the maximum dose per day on a stable regimen for at least four weeks before screening. The study population was enriched for patients who were responsive to ICS therapy. The primary objective of the present study was to show non-inferiority of these doses, i.e. the low (80 μg) and high (320 μg) doses of MF delivered via Breezhaler® once daily, compared with the corresponding low (200 μg) and high (800 μg) doses of MF delivered via Twisthaler® once daily. The primary endpoint was 24 h post-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), after four weeks of treatment in patients with asthma. A secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of MF 80 μg and 320 μg delivered via Breezhaler®, and MF 200 μg and 800 μg delivered via Twisthaler® in terms of Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) after one, two, three and four weeks of treatment., Results: The LS mean difference in trough FEV 1 after four weeks of treatment between MF low dose 80 μg (Breezhaler®) and MF low dose 200 μg (Twisthaler®) was 27 mL (95% CI -34, 89); for MF high dose 320 μg (Breezhaler®) and MF high dose 800 μg (Twisthaler®) the difference was 0 mL (95% CI -60, 61). These differences were neither clinically nor statistically significant. All treatment arms provided similar clinically relevant improvements in ACQ-5 after four weeks of treatment compared with baseline. Both treatments showed a similar safety profile with a low incidence of adverse events., Conclusion: The similarities in effects on lung function and ACQ after four weeks of treatment demonstrate the comparability of MF at low (80 μg) and high (320 μg) doses delivered with Breezhaler® with MF at low (200 μg) and high (800 μg) doses delivered with Twisthaler®, respectively. The study formally demonstrated that MF, delivered via Breezhaler®, is non-inferior to MF, delivered via Twisthaler® at corresponding ICS doses., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest RB reports grants to Mainz University and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Roche, as well as personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Cipla, Sanofi and Teva, all outside the submitted work. AMT, MH, ID, FP, BH and HCT are employees of Novartis Pharma AG and own Novartis Pharma AG shares. WC is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. CB and JJ are employees of Novartis Pharma AG. DZ is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG and owns Novartis Pharma AG shares. DZ has led the development of Breezhaler® dry powder inhaler and was the technical project leader for the development of the Breezhaler® mometasone drug product. FK reports personal grants or fees for scientific work, presentations and Advisory boards in the last 5 years from Mundipharma, Astra Zeneca, Novartis and TEVA. However, all of these are outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background:  The efficacy of the German disease management programs (DMP) asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cannot be shown with the legally bound documentations. Studies with control groups are rare. Aim of this work was to investigate in a cross-sectional study whether the disease control differs in participants (DMP+) and non-participants (DMP - ) of the DMPs asthma and COPD., Methods:  The study was a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. Primary endpoints were the Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) in the asthma part of the study and the COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) for the COPD part., Results:  A total of 1038 asthma patients and 846 COPD patients were included, of whom about 70 % participated in the corresponding DMP. The ACT total score was higher in asthma DMP+ patients than in DMP- patients (mean difference 0.86; 95 % CI: 0.29 - 1.43;p = 0.003), but not clinically relevant. For COPD there was no clinically relevant difference in COPD disease impact (0.52; 95 % CI: - 0.71 - 1.75; p = 0.405). Although DMP patients had to be enrolled in the respective DMP for at least one year, only 60 % of these patients had participated in a structured education. We did not observe a difference in disease control in DMP patients who respectively participated and did not participate in a structured education., Discussion:  There was no clinically relevant difference in disease control between DMP+ and DMP- patients. The efficacy of DMPs has been demonstrated internationally in randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted in Germany for demonstrating efficacy of DMPs asthma and COPD., Registration:  drks.de, DRKS00007664, Registration date: Jan 15, 2015., Competing Interests: Diese Studie wurde durch die Mundipharma GmbH finanziert. P. O. und B. L-B. sind Mitarbeiterinnen der Mundipharma GmbH. F. K. und A. Z. haben Beraterverträge mit der Mundipharma GmbH. A. Z. ist Mitglied der Schriftleitung der Dtsch Med Wochenschr., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Despite the use of effective medications to control asthma, severe exacerbations in asthma are still a major health risk and require urgent action on the part of the patient and physician to prevent serious outcomes such as hospitalisation or death. Moreover, severe exacerbations are associated with substantial healthcare costs and psychological burden, including anxiety and fear for patients and their families. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) set up a task force to search for a clear definition of severe exacerbations, and to also define research questions and priorities. The statement includes comments from patients who were members of the task force., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A. Bourdin reports personal and institutional fees for advisory board work from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, Boehringher Ingelheim, Chiesi, Actelion, Pfizer and Teva, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L. Bjermer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Brightling reports grants and personal fees for consultancy from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Novartis, Chiesi, Roche/Genentech and Boehringer Inglheim, personal fees for consultancy from Vectura, Theravance, PreP, Gilead, Sanofi/Regeneron, Teva, Gossamer and 4DPharma, grants from Pfizer and Mologic, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G.G. Brusselle reports personal fees for advisory board work and lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Teva, personal fees for advisory board work from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Chanez reports research grants and personal fees for consultancy, advisory board work and lectures from ALK, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA and Chiesi, grants from AMU, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K.F. Chung has received honoraria for participating in advisory board meetings of GSK, AZ, Novartis, Merck, BI and TEVA regarding treatments for asthma and COPD, and has also been renumerated for speaking engagements. Conflict of interest: A. Custovic reports personal fees for consultancy from Novartis, Regeneron/Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and Philips, personal fees for lectures from Thermo Fisher Scientific and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Z. Diamant reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Genzyme, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Aquilon, ALK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Hal Allergy and MSD, outside the submitted work; and in addiction to academic affiliations, also works at a phase I/II unit performing clinical studies for different biotech and pharma companies. Conflict of interest: S. Diver has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Djukanovic reports receiving fees for lectures at symposia organised by Novartis, AstraZeneca and TEVA, consultation for TEVA and Novartis as member of advisory boards, and participation in a scientific discussion about asthma organised by GlaxoSmithKline; in addition, is a co-founder and current consultant, and has shares in, Synairgen, a University of Southampton spin out company. Conflict of interest: D. Hamerlijnck has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Horvath reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, CSL-Behring and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S.L. Johnston reports personal fees for advisory board work from Therapeutic Frontiers and Virtus Respiratory Research, personal fees for consultancy from Myelo Therapeutics GmbH, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Gerson Lehrman Group, resTORbio, Bioforce, Materia Medical Holdings, PrepBio Pharma, Pulmotect, Virion Health and Lallemand Pharma, personal and insititutional fees for consultancy from Synairgen, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi; and has received personal fees for the following patents planned, issued or pending: transgenic animal models of HRV with human ICAM-1 sequences (UK patent application number 02 167 29.4, and international patent application number PCT/EP2003/007939); anti-virus therapy for respiratory diseases (UK patent application number GB 0405634.7); interferon-beta for anti-virus therapy for respiratory diseases (international patent application number PCT/GB05/50031); interferon lambda therapy for the treatment of respiratory disease (UK patent application number 6779645.9, granted); induction of cross-reactive cellular response against rhinovirus antigens (European patent number 13305152), outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F. Kanniess reports personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Mundipharma and TEVA, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N. Papadopoulos reports personal fees for advisory board work and lectures from Novartis, Nutricia, HAL, personal fees from Menarini/Faes Farma and Mylan/Meda, personal fees for lectures from Sanofi, Biomay, MSD, ASIT Biotech and Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees for advisory board work from AstraZeneca and GSK, grants from Gerolymatos International SA and Capricare, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Papi reports grants, personal fees for lectures, advisory board work and consultancy, and travel expenses reimbursement from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, GlaxoSmithKline and Teva, personal fees for advisory board work and consultancy from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees for lectures and travel expenses reimbursement from Zambon and Novartis, personal fees for lectures, advisory board work and consultancy, and travel expenses reimbursement from Mundipharma, personal fees for lectures and advisory board work, and travel expenses reimbursement Almirall, grants, personal fees for lectures and travel expenses reimbursement from Menarini, grants from Fondazione Maugeri, grants from Fondazione Chiesi Farmaceutici, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R.J. Russell has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Ryan reports personal fees for advisory board work from GSK and Trudell Medical, personal fees for advisory board work and lectures from AZ, personal fees for lectures from Mylan and Chiesi, personal fees for consultancy from Optimum Patient Care, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K. Samitas has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Tonia acts as ERS methodologist. Conflict of interest: E. Zervas reports personal fees consultancy and lectures from Astra, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, GSK, Elpen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Menarini and Pfizer, non-financial support for travel, accommodation and meeting expenses from Astra, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galenica, Chiesi, Elpen, Novartis, Menarini and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Gaga reports grants and personal fees from AZ, grants from BI, Elpen, Novartis and Menarini, personal fees from BMS, MSD, Chiesi and Pharmaten, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2019.)

Background: The fixed-dose combination of budesonide/formoterol (B/F) has been available in the Spiromax® dry powder inhaler since 2014., Objectives: To assess patient satisfaction, inhaler use errors, and disease control in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with B/F Spiromax., Methods: This non-interventional, prospective, 12-week study enrolled consecutive asthma or COPD patients who had recently begun treatment with B/F Spiromax or were switched from another inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination to B/F Spiromax in routine clinical practice. Patients recruited from 243 specialist respiratory clinics or general practices in Germany were assessed for patient satisfaction (Satisfaction with Inhalers and Preference questionnaire), inhaler application errors (modified Easy Low Instruction over Time checklist), disease control, and safety., Results: The population included 3,943 patients: asthma n = 2,707 (68.7%); COPD n = 1,236 (31.3%). At baseline, 60.1% of patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their previous inhaler, and this increased to 88.8% at week 12 of B/F Spiromax use. Overall, 62.1% of pre-treated patients preferred B/F Spiromax to their old inhaler. The frequency of any handling error observed with B/F Spiromax at week 12 was lower than at baseline (11.9 vs. 25.5% of patients, respectively). After 12 weeks, 77.4% were assessed as having improved (minimally, much, or very much) overall health status versus baseline. Guideline-defined disease severity (as rated by physicians) and patient-reported symptom severity improved during the study in both asthma and COPD patients. B/F Spiromax was well tolerated., Conclusion: B/F Spiromax was associated with high patient satisfaction, low device handling error rate, and improvements in clinical outcomes in real-world clinical practice., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The efficacy of the German disease management programs (DMP) asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cannot be shown with the legally bound documentations. Studies with control groups are rare. Aim of this work was to investigate in a cross-sectional study whether the disease control differs in participants (DMP+) and non-participants (DMP-) of the DMPs asthma and COPD., Methods: The study was a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. Primary endpoints were the Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) in the asthma part of the study and the COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) for the COPD part., Results: A total of 1038 asthma patients and 846 COPD patients were included, of whom about 70 % participated in the corresponding DMP. The ACT total score was higher in asthma DMP+ patients than in DMP- patients (mean difference 0.86; 95 %CI:0.29 - 1.43;p = 0.003), but not clinically relevant. For COPD there was no clinically relevant difference in COPD disease impact (0.52; 95 %CI:-0.71 - 1.75;p = 0.405). Although DMP patients had to be enrolled in the respective DMP for at least one year, only 60 % of these patients had participated in a structured education. We did not observe a difference in disease control in DMP patients who respectively participated and did not participate in a structured education., Discussion: There was no clinically relevant difference in disease control between DMP+ and DMP- patients. The efficacy of DMPs has been demonstrated internationally in randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted in Germany for demonstrating efficacy of DMPs asthma and COPD., Registration: drks.de, DRKS00007664, Registration date: Jan 15, 2015., Competing Interests: Diese Studie wurde durch die Mundipharma GmbH finanziert. P. O. und B.L-B. sind Mitarbeiterinnen der Mundipharma GmbH. F.K. und A.Z. haben Beraterverträge mit der Mundipharma GmbH. A.Z. ist Mitglied der Schriftleitung der Dtsch Med Wochenschr., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: Prospective, non-interventional study of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta 2 -agonist (LABA) combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) across a spectrum of community-based patients with asthma in a real-life setting., Methods: In FP/FORM-treated patients aged ≥12 years, asthma control (Asthma Control Test™ [ACT]), incidence of severe exacerbations, lung function, quality of life (asthma quality of life questionnaire [AQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed over one year., Results: Almost 40% (n = 555) of the full analysis population (N = 1410) were receiving ICS/LABA therapy prior to enrolment; 69.8% completed the study. Asthma control (mean ACT ± standard deviation) improved from 16.3 ± 5.0 at baseline to 19.8 ± 4.5 at study end. ACT scores were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than baseline at all observation timepoints, including the first assessment at 4-6 weeks. The percentage of patients with asthma control increased (baseline: 30.9%; study end: 62.4%), and the percentage of patients with ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation decreased (12 months before: 35.8%; during study: 5.9%). Lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow) improved from baseline to each observation timepoint (p < 0.0001 for all). Improvement in asthma status was accompanied by ameliorated quality of life: AQLQ scores improved significantly from baseline to all observation timepoints (p < 0.0001 for all). AEs accorded with the summary of product characteristics. After study completion, 70% of patients continued FP/FORM treatment., Conclusion: In this one-year study, FP/FORM treatment was associated with clinically relevant improvements in asthma status in a diverse population of patients under real-life conditions., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The dose-response relationship between two dose levels of fluticasone/formoterol (flutiform(®), 100/10 μg and 500/20 μg) was evaluated in asthmatic patients. Non-invasive inflammatory markers were used including adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge (primary endpoint), and sputum eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (secondary endpoints)., Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≥60% predicted and who required a dose of <60 mg AMP to elicit a 20% drop in FEV1 (AMP PD20) were randomised in this incomplete block, crossover study to receive 2 of 3 treatments b.i.d.: fluticasone/formoterol 500/20 μg (high dose), 100/10 μg (low dose) or placebo, during 2 periods of 28 ± 3 days each, separated by 2-3 weeks. AMP challenges were performed pre-dose and 12 h after last dose at the end of each treatment period. A series of post hoc analyses were performed only in patients allocated to both fluticasone/formoterol doses, who completed the study and had evaluable AMP PD20 data for both treatments ("fluticasone/formoterol subgroup"). Changes in AMP PD20 FEV1, percentage sputum eosinophils and FeNO levels (Day 1 vs Day 28) between treatments were compared by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)., Results: Sixty-two patients were randomised and 46 completed the study. Fifteen patients received both high- and low-dose fluticasone/formoterol (post hoc subgroup). The difference in AMP PD20 for the overall population was not statistically significant between high- and low-dose fluticasone/formoterol (LS mean fold difference: 1.3; p = 0.489), although both dose levels were superior to placebo: high-dose vs placebo LS mean fold difference: 4.4, p < 0.001; low-dose vs placebo LS mean fold difference: 3.5, p < 0.001. In the post hoc subgroup, the difference in AMP PD20 between the doses was statistically significant in favour of the high-dose (LS mean fold difference: 2.4, p = 0.012). Other inflammatory parameters (sputum eosinophil counts and FeNO) showed small differences and statistically non-significant changes between high- and low-dose fluticasone/formoterol., Conclusions: A significant dose-response was found between low- and high-dose fluticasone/formoterol in the post hoc subgroup (patients who received both doses), but not in the overall population, with the higher dose demonstrating a greater reduction in airway responsiveness to AMP., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy profile of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor used for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is well known. In asthma treatment, much less is understood about the role of roflumilast, particularly its mechanism of action and potential bronchodilatory effects., Aim: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and mechanism of action of roflumilast in patients with asthma using data from eight placebo-controlled, double-blind phase I-III studies., Methods: The studies were conducted at 14 sites in Europe, North America and South Africa from 1997 to 2005. The effect of treatment with 250 μg, 500 μg or 1000 μg roflumilast was compared with placebo in seven cross-over studies and one parallel-group study in 197 patients 18-70 years of age. Primary endpoints focused on the extent of the late allergic response after an allergen challenge, change in sputum cell eosinophil counts or exhaled nitric oxide (eNO), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Secondary endpoints included the extent of the early allergic response and measurements of tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα), sputum cells and inflammatory markers., Results: Roflumilast attenuated allergen-induced bronchoconstriction (FEV1) in patients with asthma. Significant reductions in allergen-induced airway inflammation, including a reduction in both eosinophil and neutrophil counts were also observed and physiologic responses to allergen-induced challenge were confirmed by a significant reduction in TNFα. Side effects were similar to COPD, but did not include weight loss., Conclusions: The results from these studies indicate that the anti-inflammatory effects of roflumilast observed in COPD are also seen in asthma and advance our understanding of its mechanism of action. All studies were funded by Takeda. Trial registration numbers available on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01365533., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Asthma is a common, chronic and heterogeneous syndrome, affecting people of all ages, all races and both sexes. It may range from mild disease with barely noticeable symptoms, to very severe disease with constant symptoms that greatly hinder the life of the patient. Guidelines issued by various medical societies provide guidance on how to diagnose and manage asthmatic patients. It is now increasingly recognised that asthma management must be individualised, tailored not only to the severity of the disease but to the phenotypic characteristics of each patient. The aim of asthma treatment is control of asthma and the prevention of risk of exacerbations and fixed airflow limitation. Asthma control can be easily assessed clinically through simple screening tools such as the use of validated questionnaires and spirometry. The use of inflammatory biomarkers can be an alternative approach that, however, requires more time and resources. Asthma treatment involves the use of controllers, mainly inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists, and relievers, mainly rapid-acting β2-agonists. Controller medications reduce airway inflammation, lead to better symptom control and reduce the risk of future exacerbations. Reliever (rescue) medications alleviate symptoms and prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Treatment must be based on a "stepwise approach" in order to achieve good control of symptoms and to minimise future risks of exacerbations. That is, less treatment for mild disease, more treatment for severe, uncontrolled disease. Once good asthma control has been achieved and maintained, treatment should be stepped down. In severe asthmatics, phenotypic characterisation becomes more clinically useful and add-on treatment such as anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibodies may be required. Despite our better understanding of asthma, there are still patients who will not respond to treatment and remain symptomatic. Dissemination of guidelines and national plans allowing early diagnosis of asthma as well as access to specialised primary and secondary care for asthmatic patients, personalised treatment and continuity of care may lead to excellence in care and controlled asthma for the majority of patients. Education of the patient in asthma is also very important, as in every chronic disease, as the patients live with the disease every day while they visit a healthcare professional a few times a year. Future planning for new treatments should focus on the needs of such severe asthma patients.

Rationale: An antagonist (MK-7123) of the cytokine receptor CXCR2 reduces neutrophil chemotaxis and thus may alleviate airway inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Objectives: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three dose levels of MK-7123, compared with placebo, in patients with moderate to severe COPD., Methods: This 6-month, double-blind study randomized patients with moderate to severe COPD (already on standard therapy) to daily MK-7123 at 10, 30, or 50 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in post-bronchodilator FEV1., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 616 patients (71% male; mean age, 63 yr; 45% current smokers; baseline FEV1 [SD], 1.43 L [0.45]; mean FEV1 percent predicted, 43.9%) were randomized. Only MK-7123 50 mg led to significant improvement in FEV1 over placebo (mean difference [SE], 67 ml [32]). Reduced sputum neutrophil count was observed among the 122 patients examined; P = 0.003 (3 mo) and P = 0.092 (6 mo) (MK-7123 50 mg vs. placebo). The stratum of current smokers, but not that of nonsmokers, showed significant improvement versus placebo in FEV1 (168 ml) and time-to-first exacerbation, and showed numerical improvement in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD score. MK-7123 caused a dose-dependent decrease in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and reduced inflammatory biomarkers matrix metallopeptidase-9 and myeloperoxidase in plasma and sputum; ANC lower than 1.5 × 10(9)/L led to discontinuations with higher doses of MK-7123 (18% in the MK-7123 50-mg group vs. 1% in placebo). Plasma C-reactive protein and fibrinogen increased with MK-7123 treatment. Rates of infections at 6 months were similar in all groups., Conclusions: Treatment with MK-7123 50 mg versus placebo led to significant improvement in FEV1 in patients with COPD, suggesting clinically important antiinflammatory effects with CXCR2 antagonism, although dose-related discontinuations were observed because of ANC decreases with MK-7123. Greater response was observed in smokers versus ex-smokers. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01006616).

Background: The fixed combination of extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate and formoterol fumarate (BDP/FF) pMDI (Foster(®)) is approved for treatment of adult asthmatic patients. In order to provide an alternative drug delivery system for BDP/FF to physicians and patients, a dry powder inhaler (NEXThaler(®)) has been developed, capable to deliver extrafine particles to the lungs and therefore improve the dosing of the drugs, especially in patients with poor hand-breath coordination., Objective: This trial was performed to compare efficacy and safety of extrafine BDP/FF NEXThaler(®) with extrafine BDP/FF pMDI or non-extrafine BDP DPI alone in adult patients with controlled asthma., Methods: In this 8-week randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, patients were randomized to receive either extrafine BDP/FF NEXThaler(®) 100/6 μg bid, extrafine BDP/FF 100/6 μg pMDI bid or non-extrafine BDP DPI 100 μg bid. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline to the entire 8-week randomised treatment period in average pre-dose morning PEF., Results: The ITT population comprised 754 patients. Extrafine BDP/FF NEXThaler(®) was non-inferior (pre-defined margin: -15 L/min) relative to extrafine BDP/FF pMDI (mean difference: -1.84; 95% CI: -6.73, 3.05) in terms of the primary efficacy variable, change from baseline in average pre-dose morning PEF. Statistical superiority of both extrafine BDP/FF formulations over non-extrafine BDP DPI was demonstrated for the primary efficacy variable (providing evidence of assays sensitivity of the trial), ACQ score and percentage of rescue medication use-free days. No significant safety signals were observed., Conclusion: NEXThaler(®) is an effective and well-tolerated delivery device for treatment of patients with asthma who need a regular treatment., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways, but in clinical practice inflammation is rarely monitored. The aim of this study was to assess the level of airway inflammation in steroid naïve adult and pediatric patients with intermittent asthma over one year., Methods: 54 children and 50 adults with intermittent asthma (GINA step 1) were included. On up to 6 visits lung function, airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine (PC20FEV1), sputum eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were assessed., Results: 36 pediatric and 34 adult patients were able to produce at least three adequate sputum samples over the study period and were included into the analysis.In 8 children (22%) the percentage of sputum eosinophils was always below 2.5%. A higher level of eosinophils (>2.5%) was found on at least one visit in 16 (44%) and always >2.5% in 12 children (33%). In the adult group the respective numbers were 14 patients (41%) with always low (<2.5%), 17 (50%) with at least once over 2.5% and three patients (9%) were always above the threshold of 2.5% sputum eosinophils., Conclusion: These results demonstrate that a substantial number of children and adults with intermittent asthma under ß-agonist treatment only, have variable or persistently high levels of eosinophilic airway inflammation. Long-term studies are needed to observe the progression of asthma severity in such patient populations.

Background: Objective measures are required that may be used as a proxy for exacerbations in asthma. The aim was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of electronic diary data to detect severe exacerbations (SEs) of asthma. A secondary aim was to identify phenotypic variables associated with a higher risk of exacerbation., Methods: In the BIOAIR study, 169 patients with asthma (93 severe (SA); 76 mild to moderate (MA)) recorded lung function, symptoms and medication use in electronic diaries for 1 year. Data were analysed using receiver-operator characteristics curves and related to physician-diagnosed exacerbations. Medical history and baseline clinical data were used to assess risk of exacerbation., Results: Of 122 physician-diagnosed exacerbations, 104 occurred in the SA group (1.1 per patient/year), 18 in the MA group (0.2 per patient/year) and 63 were severe using American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society criteria. During exacerbations, peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s significantly decreased, whereas day and night symptoms significantly increased. An algorithm combining a 20% decrease in PEF or a 20% increase in day symptoms on 2 consecutive days was able to detect SEs with 65% sensitivity and 95% specificity. The strongest risk factors for SEs were low Asthma Control Questionnaire score, sputum eosinophils ≥ 3%, body mass index >25 and low quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire), with ORs between 3.61 and 2.22 (p<0.05)., Conclusions: Regular electronic monitoring of PEF and asthma symptoms provides an acceptable sensitivity and specificity for the detection of SEs and may be suitable for personal internet-based monitoring of asthma control.

Background: Allergen-specific TH2 responses contribute to the development of allergic asthma. Their increase may be due to a reduced early exposure to environmental pathogens, which induces a TH1 response, and thereby suppresses the allergic TH2 response. QbG10 (bacteriophage Qbeta-derived virus-like particle with CpG-motif G10 inside), a novel Toll-like receptor 9 agonist packaged into virus-like particles, was designed to stimulate the immune system toward a TH1-mediated protective response., Objective: We examined clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of QbG10 with patient-reported and objective clinical outcome parameters in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent allergic asthma., Methods: In this proof-of-concept parallel-group, double-blind, randomized trial, 63 asthmatic patients followed conversion to a standardized inhaled steroid and were treated with 7 injections of either QbG10 or placebo. Incorporating a controlled steroid withdrawal, the effects on patient-reported (day- and nighttime asthma symptoms, salbutamol usage, and 7-item-Asthma Control Questionnaire scores) and objective clinical outcome measures (FEV1, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, and blood eosinophils) were assessed over 12 weeks (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00890734)., Results: All patient-reported parameters improved overall between week 0 and 12 in QbG10-treated patients (n = 33) despite steroid withdrawal, compared with deteriorations observed under placebo (n = 30, P < .05). At week 12, two thirds of the QbG10-treated patients had their asthma "well controlled" (Asthma Control Questionnaire score ≤0.75) compared with one third under placebo. FEV1 had worsened to a clinically significant extent in patients on placebo, while it remained stable in QbG10 patients. Adverse events were mostly injection site reactions occurring after QbG10 administration., Conclusion: Treatment with QbG10 may contribute to continued asthma control during steroid reduction in patients on moderate or high-dose inhaled steroids., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)